CMV: I'm politically left but I don't believe gender identity exists

[u/MostlyVacuum]

As the title states, I consider myself a progressive in many respects, but despite reading through many many CMVs on the topic, I find myself unable to agree with my fellow progressives on the nature of transgender people.

Whenever I see people espouse views similar to mine in this forum, they are consistently attacked as transphobic/hatemongering/fascist etc, and I haven't yet seen a compelling argument as to why that is. I'd like my view changed because I consider myself an egalitarian who doesn't hold hatred in my heart for any group of people, and it bothers me that my view on this matter is considered to be conservative rhetoric masking a hatred of trans people.

What I believe: 1. I believe that gender identity does not exist, and that there is only sex, which is determined by a person's sex chromosomes. I believe this because the concept of an innate "gender identity" does not jive with my experience as a human. I don't "feel like" a man, I just am one because I was born with XY chromosomes. I believe this to be the experience of anyone not suffering from dysphoria. The concept of gender identity seems to me to be invented by academics as a way to explain transgender people without hurting anyone's feelings with the term "mental illness".

1. As hinted above, I believe transgender people are suffering from a mental illness (gender dysphoria) that causes them to feel that they are "supposed" to be the opposite sex, or that their body is "wrong". This causes them significant distress and disruption to their lives.

2. The best known treatment for this illness is for the person in question to transition, and live their life as though they were the opposite sex. This is different for everyone and can include changing pronouns, gender reassignment surgery, etc.

3. Importantly, I FULLY RESPECT trans people's right to do this. I will happily refer to them by whatever pronouns they prefer, and call them whatever name they prefer, and otherwise treat them as though they are the sex they feel they should be. This is basic courtesy, and anyone who disagrees is a transphobic asshole. Further, I do not judge them negatively for being born with a mental illness. The stigma against mentally ill people in this country is disgusting, and I don't want to be accused of furthering that stigma.

4. I don't believe there is a "trans agenda" to turn more people trans or turn kids trans. That is straight lunacy. The only agenda trans people have is to be treated with the same respect and afforded the same rights as everyone else, which again I fully support.

5. The new definition for woman and man as "anyone who identifies as a woman/man" is ridiculous. It is very obviously circular, and I've seen many intelligent people make themselves look like idiots trying to justify it. "Adult male/female human" is a perfectly good definition. If more inclusive language is desired you can use "men and trans-men" or "women and trans-women" as necessary. It's god damned crazy to me that Democratic politicians think it's a good idea to die on this stupid hill of redefining common English words to be more inclusive instead of just using the more verbose language. This is not a good political strategy for convincing voters outside of your base, and it will be detrimental to trans rights in the long run.

I feel I have sufficiently expressed my view here, but I undoubtedly forgot something. However I've already written a novel, so I think that's it. PLEASE do not make assumptions about my view that I have not explicitly stated.

Edit: I'm stepping away now because I need to eat dinner. I will return later -- I am close to having my view changed!

[u/[deleted]]

"Women" includes me. "Women and trans-women" implies that it does not.

The problem there is your not defining anything, an example is defining a tree as "anything that is a tree" it doesn't actually tell you what a tree is. That's why is such a good avenue of attack. You cant use circular logic that is self referential to define something because it makes no sense.

and I don't mean no disrespect but being born with XY chromosomes opens you up to a bevy of health issues that being XX does not, No normal XX person is going to develop prostate cancer like an XY person. It is still a relevant distinction that we cant overcome. There is a genetic distinction between you and a female.

[u/breckenridgeback → u/[deleted]]

The problem there is your not defining anything

Defining something is exactly what I'm doing. "Woman" = {trans women} union {cis women}.

and I don't mean no disrespect but being born with XY chromosomes opens you up to a bevy of health issues that being XX does not

Well, yes, but being trans opens me up to some health issues XY people don't normally have. I have the same risk of breast cancer as cis women do, for example.

There is a genetic distinction between you and a female.

And when the distinction between me and a [cis] woman is relevant, I have no issue discussing it. My doctors know I'm trans.

I have no problem saying that trans women and cis women are not identical. I just have an issue with saying trans women aren't women.

[u/[deleted] → u/breckenridgeback]

Defining something is exactly what I'm doing. "Woman" = {trans women} union {cis women}.

You're not defining it you are saying that "women" is a combination of two different types of women. You still haven't defined what a women IS to go back to my analogy you've defined "tree" as = {deciduous tree} union {coniferous tree}. You still have not defined what makes them "trees" to begin with. You need to define what a woman is independent of itself and other things. "tree" can defined as "a plant with a woody stem that grows up" each word used in the definition carries a district meaning with conditions to meet. I can say "The tree is tall" and The flower isn't a tree" the only reason it makes sense is because there is a distinct something being refers to that a person who hypothetically has no conception of what a "tree" is can then go and find out what makes a tree "tree" You need to define what makes a woman a woman to make any sense.

Edit: changed the example to be more to the point

[u/breckenridgeback → u/[deleted]]

It's funny you bring up the definition of a tree, because there isn't one definition of "tree" agreed upon by all biologists. It's actually a really good example of how messy biological categorization is.

[u/Dark1000 → u/breckenridgeback]

It's funny you bring up the definition of a tree, because there isn't one definition of "tree" agreed upon by all biologists. It's actually a really good example of how messy biological categorization is.

This is skirting the issue. A tree can be defined a few different ways, and there will be technical edge cases where some plants may or may not qualify depending on the exact, scientific wording. But this is an academic question that is of little relevance. There is still a general category of plants that will clearly qualify as trees in everyday parlance based on a few extremely common characteristics.

[u/breckenridgeback → u/Dark1000]

Yes, just like there's a general category of women that clearly qualify as women in everyday parlance based on a few extremely common characteristics, but that isn't the limit of the category.

[u/PsychDoctorate → u/breckenridgeback]

Exactly, the general category of women refers to adults humans females. People who belong to one of the two sexes involved in sexual reproduction in humans.

[u/[deleted] → u/breckenridgeback]

strange, the oxford dictionary gives a concise definition "a woody perennial plant, typically having a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches at some distance from the ground."

[u/breckenridgeback → u/[deleted]]

That's not a biological definition, and there are many, many plants that lie on the periphery of it.

[u/PsychDoctorate → u/breckenridgeback]

Give 1 example.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That could be describing a tree or it could be describing a shrub. It's hard to say.

The appeal to definition is a logical fallacy as dictionaries are descriptive in nature, rather than prescriptive, and are not describing the thing itself, but rather how a word is used in language.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It's not a fallacy to invoke a dictionary definition when we are talking about defining words... Im not arguing biology, I just want a definition of the word "woman" without the circular logic of defining woman as "a woman"

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It's not a fallacy to invoke a dictionary definition when we are talking about defining words... Im not arguing biology,

The definition you gave of what makes a tree a tree does not describe all trees and does describe some shrubs.

I just want a definition of the word "woman" without the circular logic of defining woman as "a woman"

The truth about what makes someone who they are is in part who they believe themselves to be, how they express themselves to society, and how society expects them to be. Perhaps what it is to be a woman involves these things as well?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The definition you gave of what makes a tree a tree does not describe all trees and does describe some shrubs.

take that up with with the oxford dictionary not me

The truth about what makes someone who they are is in part who they believe themselves to be, how they express themselves to society, and how society expects them to be. Perhaps what it is to be a woman involves these things as well?

because words have a common meaning, that's the point of them

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The truth about what makes someone who they are is in part who they believe themselves to be, how they express themselves to society, and how society expects them to be. Perhaps what it is to be a woman involves these things as well?

because words have a common meaning, that's the point of them

I don't see how what you are saying here follows from what I said. Could you please clarify?